Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sundad, Arizona

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article has been substantially improved and though this is on the edge of what should be kept as a (once-)populated place, those supporting retention of the article are not clearly in the wrong. BD2412 T 01:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sundad, Arizona

Sundad, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Having a greaqt deal of trouble with this one, as sources tend to assume that ruins of buildings equal ghost town. There was a mine here, and it's not beyond possibility that the foundations seen are all of mine buildings. Many sources say there was a TB sanatorium here, but otehrs say that they only though about putting one here and that it was never built. Almost all of them say "not much is known about Sundad". The elaborate rock patterns, BTW, appear to be new. I couldn't find any documentation of the "Sundad" sign before 2006. Mangoe (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep due to lack of deletion rationale

WP:GEOLAND has a really low bar and this passes it. CT55555(talk) 05:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One gets tired of the ritual language after doing several hundred of these, but as it appears it must be uttered: this fails

WP:GNG, and I can just barely determine that there was a mine here, much less that it meets any criterion for notability. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Justwatchmee (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whatever this place was, it hasn't received enough significant coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 15:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this indicates it was a known location, this which calls it a ghost town, indicating it was populated at one time, this which also indicates that it was populated at one time, this which indicates that folks were still living there in the late 1930s, this and this are verbatim entries in two publications, indicating this was a known location. Also, this, while a brief mention, is a mention in a list of other populated locations.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Onel5969: Just a heads up, I would recommend removing the Wikipedia portion of the URL to make it more accessible:

  • https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/clip/77783901/ (Requires logging in)
  • https://www.newspapers.com/clip/77783901/arizona-republic/ (Free to view by anyone)

  Just in case a user without access to the Wikipedia Library wants to view your sources! Why? I Ask (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete:
  WP:GEOLAND says that populated places without legal recognition are decided on a case-by-case basis per reliable sources. However, all the sources above simply establish that it existed. But after a lengthy search, I can not find anything more than trivial mentions anywhere. (I only stopped looking at Newspapers.com after the first hundred or so entries where it began to give me instances of "Sunday" and "Standard".) Why? I Ask (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:NOR, and if this wasn't an article about a place they would not be taken at all seriously. Hut 8.5 19:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep per Onel5969's analysis above. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your vote doesn't really make much sense. Simply name dropping a town doesn't provide enough coverage per

  WP:GEOLAND, so voting speedy keep on such an edge case isn't helpful. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep Notable former mining settlement with encyclopedic content. Plenty of hits in Google Books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In my own review, I find that the article subject meets
  WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]